On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:18:14 -0400, Chante <udontspa...@never.will.u>
wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.v3yn2di8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
3. It is a very slippery slope to go down. Software is a purely
*abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
Software is a machine: concrete thing doing concrete job. Patent
doesn't protect the machine itself, it protects concrete design work
put into it. Design is a high-profile work, a good design has a good
chance to be more expensive than the actual implementation. So it's
perfectly valid to claim ownership for a design work and charge fees
for it.
And why wouldn't you be able to do this without patents?
One can: trade secrets. But a lot of times, techniques cannot be hidden
away, for just releasing a product may divulge the "secret", so something
more is needed: patent.
If you don't "divulge" the secret, then you don't sell anything. Note
that the secret is already difficult to reproduce, no patents necessary,
because it's not in source form, and one cannot simply duplicate the code,
you have to rewrite it in your own code. Just knowing the secret isn't
enough. Patents are needed because you cannot copyright machines.
Copyright is actually a better protection, because it can be extended over
100 years past the lifetime of the author (I question the need for this
time length too).
People sell books, and have no problem doing so without patents, because a
book is hard to reproduce. But one can always read a good book and use
the same "design" (i.e. plot elements, sequence of story, etc.) to write
their own book. And it doesn't necessarily hurt the original author.
Again, copyright already covers software.
While it's probably not enough or even the correct thing in the first
place, is "software" copyrightable or source code, or both separately? It
seems that copyright has appropriateness for software, but is useless as
protection of the software designs as represented by source code.
Both are copyrightable. Source code is written words, binary code is a
direct translation.
If source code is equivalent to a book, then the binary code is equivalent
to a translation to a different language of the same book. Both are
covered under the original author's copyright.
Plenty of software companies have large amounts of IP and are
successful without having any software patents.
Are you suggesting that there MUST be only ONE ("one and only") way?
Great then, let's make it so there is only ONE software too. Problem
solved, eh?
I'm not really sure what you are saying here...
It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost.
Dead software is seen as unusable. So - no, to produce software you
need continuous maintenance and development which is as expensive as
any other labor.
What I mean is, with a traditional machine, there is a cost to
recreating the machine. Such manufacturing requires up-front
investment that can possibly outweigh the cost of implementing the
design. Patents protect the entity putting their product out there
from having a larger company who can throw money around beat you using
your idea. In software, since the software is protected by copyright,
the competition must build their own version of your software ideas
first, and the distribution is relatively insignificant. In other
words, once you release your idea to the world, it can be sold and
installed for millions in a matter of days, giving you the lion share
of the market.
Seems like incentive to get into Engineering, huh. Those who want to "win
big" and expend no effort should stick to buying lottery tickets (and
stop preying upon others). Keeping things away from the sleazy, grimey
fingers of those who want to profit from someone else's labor or get
something for nothing, is a good thing.
If nobody was able to use anyone else's ideas, where would we be today?
You may misunderstand my point of view. I'm all *for* IP protection, just
not *monopoly* protection where it is not needed. The US patent system as
it exists today is not a good fit for protecting software. It does not
achieve the goals that the patent system was created for.
Have you heard of patent trolls? These are firms that write no software,
yet they file for or acquire software patents in the hopes that some day
someone will write covered software and they can collect royalties. How
is that not "profiting from someone else's labor"?
For example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/22/angry-birds-maker-rovio-sued-by-lodsys
4. Unlike a physical entity, it is very likely a simple individual,
working on his own time with his own ideas, can create software that
inadvertently violates a "patent" with low cost.
I don't see how this doesn't apply to physical machines.
When you are talking about patents for a machine or physical entity,
there is a large investment and cost in just designing the item,
How many man years are in the average commercially offered software
product?
And how many man years would it take for someone to reproduce it? Again,
the patent system covered IP that was not copyrightable. Things that are
copyrightable are hard to reproduce.
or the means to manufacture it. It's less likely that a simple
individual has the capital necessary to create it, and if he does, or
can raise it, a patent search is usually done to avoid complications.
He might also look at expired patents to get ideas on how to do
things.
However, working software can be written by one guy in his apartment in
a couple weeks.
"The quick hack" is hardly "mainstream commercial software product"? Why
bring up special cases? Why imply that a special case represents the
whole realm?
Because it's the quick hacks that infringe on patents which are affected.
Large companies who have libraries of patents don't care about violating
other company patents, because there is mutually assured destruction.
Essentially, the quick hack does well, it blossoms into a good piece of
complex and useful software. The developer creates a company, hires
developers, marketing, etc. Gets big enough, and then some competitor
decides they are too big and sues to put them out of business. Not having
any patents for software, the developer cannot counter-sue, and goes out
of business.
He's not going to do patent searches when it costs him just 2 weeks
time to create the software.
Assumption may be made that because a patent pre-exists, that someone
else cannot independently create the same thing, which of course is
possible and likely. Ideally, all patents would be kept a secret so that
those independently developed creations could have a life also, instead
of just those of "the chosen ones". Not allowing software patents would
seem to "level the playing field" for all and cut out useless
administration tasks.
Hmm, no it wouldn't: big money would feed off of the inventions of the
little guy.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. Smaller software companies usually win
because they are more agile and they charge less. If you really think Big
Money would feed off the little guy, why do so many software giants oppose
eliminating or lessening software patents? Do you think they are not as
wise as you?
That's where the consumer fits in though: don't buy from the
undeserving, and identify them as the predators they are. That may be the
key: render power/money-as-power, useless as a strategy.
I'll buy from whomever makes the best product. If you make a good
product, you deserve to be paid for it. Problem is, monopolies usually
don't make a good product, because lack of competition hinders advancement.
Something to
think about next time you buy from someone who has more than you, huh.
I don't fault people for being successful. There is no need to punish
someone because you are jealous of their wealth, you have the same
opportunities (at least in the US).
Here, the patent system is just getting in the way of innovation.
The patent system is justified in the name of "incentive", but are
patents in reality, a crime against humanity?
Patents should, perhaps, be to protect only what cannot be kept a secret.
"Incentive" shouldn't even be part of the equation. "Incentive" is
"prodding" at best, "imposition" at worst (where the "crime against
humanity reference above came from).
No, you misunderstand the position. Patents are necessary to protect
things that are not *already* protected by copyright. Copyright is much
better protection when it is possible because it's very very difficult to
duplicate a copyrighted work. Without patents, I feel innovation would
not have been as rapid for most industries. Software is not one of them.
It's having the opposite effect by instilling fear in anyone writing
software that some patent-holding company is going to squash him out
of business.
It does do that, yes.
When was the last time you did anything with a patented software
technology except *avoid it like the plague*?
Never looked at any, but how many do I know of inadvertently because they
weren't kept a secret? Where are all the warning signs on information
describing patented things? They should have warnings just like
cigarettes (yet another cigarette analogy... Cigarettes and information
about patented things: things that may be hazardous or dangerous).
How to improve patent system is another question.
Can't be fixed and the only solution is to eliminate it?
Or limit them. Change the term to 2 years, and you will see a lot less
issue. 17 years is about 8 generations in the software industry. Think
of what software was like 17 years ago.
GPL3 can actually play
some role here: there's no mercantile reason to restrict use of a
patented technology in a GPL3 software.
IMO, there's no reason to ever use any form of GPL anymore. It's work
is done.
So now it's supposed to be credited with something and people should bow
to it? What is that something? That communism doesn't work in practice?
It's accomplishment was to enforce open-source software in spite of the
corporate negative view of open source software. Essentially, it said "if
you want our services, you have to play nice." But now, we have much
better open-source licenses, and a whole ecosystem built around open
source. Businesses have been embracing open-source software, and
understanding why it works, their minds have been changed. It's proven to
work, and it's proven to work better in some cases than closed-source.
But is it still necessary to keep the viral nature of GPL?
An interesting article on this from Eric S. Raymond:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21192/ESR_GPL_No_Longer_Needed
-Steve
